Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...

[mike tesko]

You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.

--------------------------------

The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?

The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...

Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...

[mike tesko]

Look, if Malcolm Bonnet's log was photocopied onto the other side of another original log, that means the original log must have been put into the paper-in compartment of the copier, and Malcolm Bonnet's log must have put onto the glass sheet on the top of the copier. Then the copy button would be pressed, and the Bonnet log would appear as a copy on the other side of the other original log.

Can anyone tell me why someone would do that?

-----------------------

Well, first of all, what you are saying is not strictly true, you could place a copy onto the glass of the photocopier and copy that, so I don't know where you are getting your information from, but I think your just speculating - and if somebody went to the trouble of copying an original in the circumstances you have explained, why not simply produce the original, and let the prosecutor know that it is being made an official exhibit?  Unless of course, there was some information on the reverse side of the original that was being copied, that somebody did not want anyone to see...

I wonder what was on the reverse of the original document - more information confirming that a call was made by Ralph Bamber ten minutes or so before the one received from the son, I should think?

Why else not disclose or make the original available?

[jon]

Didnt JB say in a letter to you lately , he now know's which document's are forged ? He mentioned  something about the photocopier i think , he then went on to say he has only just told the CCRC .

[Kaldin]

You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.

--------------------------------

The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?

The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...

Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...

Would you like to comment on this thread, which was moved here from the jeremybamber.com site? It has a different version to yours.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html

[Kaldin]

See what I mean?

However neither the police or the prosecution intended page one of the Wireless Message Log to be seen by the defence, the judge or the jury and according to the 2004 Witness Statements none of them did see it. The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not. Quite why this Wireless Message Log appears on the reverse of an unrelated document and not on the proper form like the other fourteen pages of the Wireless Message Log is yet another unexplained anomaly in this case.

[mike tesko]

You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.

--------------------------------

The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?

The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...

Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...

Would you like to comment on this thread, which was moved here from the jeremybamber.com site? It has a different version to yours.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html

-----------------------

I was not the author of that posting...

[Kaldin]

You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.

--------------------------------

The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?

The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...

Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...

Would you like to comment on this thread, which was moved here from the jeremybamber.com site? It has a different version to yours.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html

-----------------------

I was not the author of that posting...

I know that, but the author appears to have information about that document, so how come you and that person are saying different things?

[mike tesko]

Phone call Diagram:-

[mike tesko]

You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.

--------------------------------

The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?

The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...

Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...

Would you like to comment on this thread, which was moved here from the jeremybamber.com site? It has a different version to yours.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html

-----------------------

I was not the author of that posting...

I know that, but the author appears to have information about that document, so how come you and that person are saying different things?

-----------------------

That person is describing what the situation was at the time of the trial, whereas I am describing what took place after the trial, to make it look like it was all part of the same document at the time of the trial...

[Kaldin]

You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.

--------------------------------

The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?

The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...

Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...

Would you like to comment on this thread, which was moved here from the jeremybamber.com site? It has a different version to yours.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html

-----------------------

I was not the author of that posting...

I know that, but the author appears to have information about that document, so how come you and that person are saying different things?

-----------------------

That person is describing what the situation was at the time of the trial, whereas I am describing what took place after the trial, to make it look like it was all part of the same document at the time of the trial...

It seems to me that the person who wrote that explanation is saying that Malcolm Bonnet wrote his log of what happened at the scene on the reverse side of his phone log. Is that a correct interpretation?

[mike tesko]

You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.

--------------------------------

The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?

The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...

Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...

Would you like to comment on this thread, which was moved here from the jeremybamber.com site? It has a different version to yours.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html

-----------------------

I was not the author of that posting...

I know that, but the author appears to have information about that document, so how come you and that person are saying different things?

-----------------------

That person is describing what the situation was at the time of the trial, whereas I am describing what took place after the trial, to make it look like it was all part of the same document at the time of the trial...

It seems to me that the person who wrote that explanation is saying that Malcolm Bonnet wrote his log of what happened at the scene on the reverse side of his phone log. Is that a correct interpretation?

....

No, I don't think it is saying that, I think it is saying that the details were copied onto the reverse of another log...

You need to speak to the author of that post and ask that person what they are saying and what they mean by what they are saying in that post...

[Kaldin]

You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.

--------------------------------

The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?

The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...

Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...

Would you like to comment on this thread, which was moved here from the jeremybamber.com site? It has a different version to yours.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html

-----------------------

I was not the author of that posting...

I know that, but the author appears to have information about that document, so how come you and that person are saying different things?

-----------------------

That person is describing what the situation was at the time of the trial, whereas I am describing what took place after the trial, to make it look like it was all part of the same document at the time of the trial...

It seems to me that the person who wrote that explanation is saying that Malcolm Bonnet wrote his log of what happened at the scene on the reverse side of his phone log. Is that a correct interpretation?

....

No, I don't think it is saying that, I think it is saying that the details were copied onto the reverse of another log...

Let's look at it again.

However neither the police or the prosecution intended page one of the Wireless Message Log to be seen by the defence, the judge or the jury and according to the 2004 Witness Statements none of them did see it. The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not. Quite why this Wireless Message Log appears on the reverse of an unrelated document and not on the proper form like the other fourteen pages of the Wireless Message Log is yet another unexplained anomaly in this case.

He's saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the phone call was in court and it was copied and handed out to everyone, but that the first page of the log of the scene was not - in my opinion.

[mike tesko]

They moved all the timings of the phone calls around, to make it appear as though Jeremy had been lying about the phone call he received from his father at whf, and the call he made to the police, and the call he made to his girlfriend...

EP know that a call was made from the scene to JB's cottage, and they know that there was someone alive inside whf at 3:45am, described by PC Myall as an unidentified male, who was suspect number one, that EP tried to identify as the hitman......

[Kaldin]

They moved all the timings of the phone calls around, to make it appear as though Jeremy had been lying about the phone call he received from his father at whf, and the call he made to the police, and the call he made to his girlfriend...

EP know that a call was made from the scene to JB's cottage, and they know that there was someone alive inside whf at 3:45am, described by PC Myall as an unidentified male, who was suspect number one, that EP tried to identify as the hitman......

In your opinion ...

[mike tesko]

You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.

--------------------------------

The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?

The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...

Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...

Would you like to comment on this thread, which was moved here from the jeremybamber.com site? It has a different version to yours.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html

-----------------------

I was not the author of that posting...

I know that, but the author appears to have information about that document, so how come you and that person are saying different things?

-----------------------

That person is describing what the situation was at the time of the trial, whereas I am describing what took place after the trial, to make it look like it was all part of the same document at the time of the trial...

It seems to me that the person who wrote that explanation is saying that Malcolm Bonnet wrote his log of what happened at the scene on the reverse side of his phone log. Is that a correct interpretation?

....

No, I don't think it is saying that, I think it is saying that the details were copied onto the reverse of another log...

Let's look at it again.

However neither the police or the prosecution intended page one of the Wireless Message Log to be seen by the defence, the judge or the jury and according to the 2004 Witness Statements none of them did see it. The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not. Quite why this Wireless Message Log appears on the reverse of an unrelated document and not on the proper form like the other fourteen pages of the Wireless Message Log is yet another unexplained anomaly in this case.

He's saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the phone call was in court and it was copied and handed out to everyone, but that the first page of the log of the scene was not - in my opinion.

----------------------

I don't think the author of that post has explained the situation accurately, enough for me to comment upon...